That's interesting if true. He said point blank there is a such thing as bad apologetics, and I only asked for an example. If I claimed there were a such thing as cars, then surely I have in mind at least one example of an automobile, and it wouldn't be much effort to say, "Ford!" or "crossover!"IHAQ wrote:He’s telling you, overtly but maybe unwittingly, that you and your questions are not worth his time and his effort.
That he resorted desperately to copilot shows that he did not have any examples of bad apologetics in mind when he made the statement. In other words, MG does not believe there have been bad apologetics. He threw out a talking point to make himself sound fair minded. This is a common tactic of psudoscientists and conspiracy theorists.
And then, he lectures me on the lack of commonality between believers and unbelievers, the gulf is too wide to have a conversation. Yet, he has spent gobs of time on this forum over the years primarily engaging with unbelievers. To my knowledge, there are no Catholics on the board, which he believes is the best example of common ground for a discussion. Why hasn't he spent a thousand hours on Catholic forums? He comes here with his astounding discovery of the Hanson debate to throw at a bunch of unbelievers without enough common ground to appreciate the points. Why?
I'll tell you why. Because he really does think his Hanson guy has great arguments, that they are appropriate for atheists and we can't counter them -- that's why he posted the link.
----
To your other material -- MG doesn't need Hanson to justify his voting, he's a Fox news boomer from Utah. It's interesting that Hanson is making a career apologizing for con men, but it doesn't weigh into my decision to not watch the video one way or another. This comes close:
As if his viewers would not be able to make an informed choice otherwise -- it's a pretentious thing to say that betrays his inexperience as a scholar and life in general. I'll admit I'm tempted to see what he says there -- what "context" does he have that everyone else is missing? If Kishkumen made the same statement about Constantine, it would be condescending and insufferable, but there would be a point given he is a Roman historian after all. Given our topic is an American politician and we're largely Americans here, it's unlikely he has any special insights that half of YouTube doesn't in order to understand the context (that we're living through real time) of a presidential candidate.I would like to attempt to frame him in a more complete context (without justifying his flaws) so you can make an informed choice
